Retrieve all actors, items, weapons, or other entity types from an RPG Maker MZ project. Use this to reference and edit game data in natural language workflows.
List all entities of a given type (actors, items, weapons, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entityType | Yes | Entity type to list |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only, unfiltered enumeration via 'list all', but discloses nothing about pagination, result format, size limits, or whether full entity objects or summaries are returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the missing behavioral detail rather than being deliberately dense.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter list tool the definition is enough to invoke, but with no output schema and no annotations it should still say something about return shape or result size. Adequate but with a clear gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the enum fully documents the valid types. The parenthetical examples in the description largely restate the enum rather than adding format or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (entities) with a clear scope qualifier ('of a given type') plus concrete examples. It is distinguishable from get_entity (single) and search_entities (filtered), though it never explicitly names those siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, even though siblings like search_entities and get_entity overlap in purpose. The 'list all' phrasing implies bulk retrieval but there is no explicit condition or exclusion to steer the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.